"By popular demand, I decided to push the limits of Xfce's customisability even further. This time, I would make it look like Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. This task proved more difficult than trying to make it look like Windows Vista. Though I haven't achieved the same degree of perfection as I did when replicating Vista, I still think I came pretty close."

Please don't get me wrong, I never meant to say that there was nothing interesting. In fact, I never said that. I want to see more interesting things than the common "let's copy windows or leopard" UIs.

I'm not an Apple fanboy, I use macs, I run linux and when I have to, I run windows. I just don't think the direct rip of a UI is necessarily the way to bring converts. It's the interfaces like you described, when implemented well and are easy to use that will. Applications that are user friendly, well designed and relatively bug free will bring users, not a copy leopard's or vista's UI.

I'm not knocking the research, the work that goes in to the open source software that people use everyday. I'm knocking the concept that copying a user interface will bring users in. The interface is only the beginning to why people run Macs or Windows based PCs or even Linux based ones. If I were to give you any of the interfaces you listed but didn't give you the open source system it was built on, instead locked it into proprietary protocols, running proprietary software, would you convert to it? Or would you say "That's just a coating on top of a system that doesn't do what I want it to"?

You're putting a thin coating on top of Linux which isn't Mac OSX, it's not Vista. It just looks like it. You still can't play DirectX 10 games, you still can't run Final Cut Pro or Logic or even a native version of Photoshop.

I just don't think the direct rip of a UI is necessarily the way to bring converts... I'm knocking the concept that copying a user interface will bring users in.

I haven't really thought too much about your point, but the pros and cons of trying to convert users by copying their default theme is a whole other topic.

However, regardless of motivation, creating themes that emulate other themes is a relatively easy and trivial endeavor in Linux/Unix. There are untold numbers of Windows and Mac themes among the *nix WMs/desktops. I would guess that Icewm alone has six or seven XP/Vista themes and almost the same number of OS X themes. I think Icewm even has a separately coded version that is made for ex-Windows users. Even the Golem window manager has an OS X theme: http://golem.sourceforge.net/themes/Wasser.png

If I were to give you any of the interfaces you listed but didn't give you the open source system it was built on, instead locked it into proprietary protocols, running proprietary software, would you convert to it? Or would you say "That's just a coating on top of a system that doesn't do what I want it to"?

A lot of people wouldn't want to use such a set-up because they are, in principle, against proprietary software and proprietary OSs. If you were to provide the same *nix window manager/desktop running on top of, say, open-source Syllable OS, then a lot of the anti-proprietary people would probably be willing to give it a go.

However, there are very few people who are opposed, in principle, to open-source software. Such people would be more inclined to run their desired desktop and software on any other platform, as long as it doesn't cost extra.

In addition, you seem to imply that Linux/Unix is "a system that doesn't do what [most folks] want it to." If so, I strongly disagree.

You're putting a thin coating on top of Linux which isn't Mac OSX, it's not Vista. It just looks like it. You still can't play DirectX 10 games, you still can't run Final Cut Pro or Logic or even a native version of Photoshop.

That point is differentiating the OSs by available apps -- not by the underlying OS nor its looks.

If those applications were ported to natively run in Linux and Unix, the Windows and Mac users would be able to use each app within almost any *nix theme and window manager, just as easily as if they were running them in Vista or OS X.

Furthermore, while using those apps in Windows, there are many ways that one can dramatically change the theme and look, and, likewise, users wouldn't have any trouble.

By the way, there are several third-party window managers available for Vista/XP. (However, it seems to be much more difficult to dramatically change the look of OS X, without X11.)

Also, there are alternatives to most of the software that you mentioned. For instance, Cinepaint has much greater color depth and Photoshop, which is one of the reasons why it is used over Photoshop on most big films (it is also used because the open-source code allows for in-house tweaks), and Ardour is probably more powerful than Logic.

FCP? What can one say... I only use it when I have to. Everything has to constantly be rendered, and it locks-up a lot. Avid is better, and Piranha (originally Linux-based) is probably even better. I have never used Cinelerra but I am increasingly hearing good things about it. I have tried some of the other open-source NLEs, and they were good for simple projects. No doubt, these apps eventually will be more competitive.